New Delhi: The Supreme Court today (Dec 9, 2004) referred to a seven-Judge Constitution Bench the constitutional questions pertaining to freedom of press involved in the case arising from the arrest warrants issued last year by the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker against Editor and senior journalists of daily newspaper "The Hindu".

A five-judge constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice R C Lahoti, Justice B N Agrawal, Justice H K Sema, Justice G P Mathur and Justice P K Balasubramaniam referred the matter to a seven-judge Bench following submissions that the apex Court had given conflicting rulings on the press freedom issue.

Appearing for the newspaper, senior advocate Harish Salve said though the arrest warrants, issued following a November 7, 2003 resolution of the House finding the journalists guilty of breach of privilege and sentencing them to seven days imprisonment, has been revoked by the Assembly, the questions about freedom of press still remains to be decided.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General G E Vahanvati said it was a sensitive issue and as the cause of action did not survive at present, there was no need for the Court to go into the issue.

The Court asked Vahanvati as to why Parliament was not framing a law on this issue and as to why it has to "poke its nose" into the fight between the Legislature and media.

When Salve submitted that the role of the press was very significant and that it has been recognised as the fourth pillar of democracy, the Bench observed that protection under the right to free speech should be available to those in media who deserve it.

Salve submitted that the law on freedom of press has undergone a sea change all over the world and even remarks expunged by the Speaker should be allowed to be published by the media if they were of great significance to the public.

The Bench observed that the media also had its responsibilities attached to reporting and has to function within limits.

"Protection available under Article 19 (right to free speech) should be available only to those who deserve it. Should we not have a responsible press?" it said.

When Salve wanted to impress on the Bench about the role of the media recognised as the "fourth pillar of democracy", the Court said, "This is not to be told to us alone. The media should also be told that they are the fourth pillars of the democracy and function in a responsible manner."

Salve pointed out that a five-judge constitution Bench of the apex Court in 1954 had give a ruling that privileges of the House under Article 194(3) of the Constitution was subject to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

He said in 1965, a seven-judge constitution Bench in another case had ruled that though the privileges of the House were subject to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, the right to free speech under Article 19 could not come in the way of the House deciding an issue pertaining to its privileges.

Noticing the conflict between the two rulings, the Bench referred the matter to a seven-judge constitution Bench.